Agenda item - BH2013/04367-13 Wilbury Road, Hove - Full Planning

Full planning - Demolition of two storey rear extension and shed to South. Reconfiguration of existing flats and erection of four storey rear extension to form 4 no two bedroom additional flats.

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

(1)       It was noted that the application site had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(2)       The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley gave a presentation by reference to plans (including block plans), photographs and elevational drawings including those showing the existing rear projection and an aerial view which showed the site in the context of the neighbouring and wider street scene. It was noted that the application site comprising a large detached villa style building to the west side of Wilbury Road was currently vacant having last been occupied as five self contained flats.

(3)       It was considered that the development would meet the aims of the Local Plan and would continue to provide residential units capable of family occupation. Whilst the existing units did not meet the criteria set out in policy HO9, given the reconfiguration of the existing units which was proposed together with the additional space which would be provided by the extension for the units as proposed it was considered that it would be appropriate for an exception to be made to policy H09. Also, the development would provide an adequate standard of accommodation and would not harm the visual amenities of the area, the amenity of nearby residential occupiers or highway safety. Approval was therefore recommended.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)       Councillor Hawtree spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the scheme and those of Councillor Wealls who was also a Local Ward Councillor but had been unable to attend the meeting. The view from the rear gardens of these properties was remarkable, considerable attention had been given to the brickwork and detailing which gave this row of buildings a pleasing symmetry, notwithstanding the existing extension. The proposals would destroy this and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring buildings including loss of light to dwellings situated to the rear in Wilbury Grove.

(5)       Mr Lap Chan spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application. He explained that the application before the Committee that day had undergone a number of amendments following consultation with officers and in order to respect neighbouring amenity and in order to mitigate any potential overlooking.

Questions for Officers

(6)       Councillor Hyde referred to the rendered finish proposed to the rear elevation seeking confirmation whether it was intended that this would be painted. The applicant who was in attendance confirmed that it would and would be of an appropriate shade which would respect neighbouring properties.

(7)       Councillor Cox requested confirmation of the location of the parking space on site and it was shown by reference to photographs.

(8)       Councillor Pissaridou stated that Councillor Wealls had referred to the proposed form of development having the potential to cause a greater degree of overlooking and loss of light and sought confirmation of the measures which had been taken to address this, also the distance from the neighbouring properties to the rear and whether the 45 degree angle had been compromised.

(9)       The Area Planning Manager explained that the distance between the site and neighbouring properties was considered sufficient not to impact on privacy and any diminution of light would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission.

(10)     Councillor Theobald sought clarification regarding the extent to which the extension would project into the existing garden area.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(11)     Councillor Theobald stated that although she liked the scheme she considered that the rear extension would be overly dominant and overpowering of its rear neighbours and for that reason she would be voting against the application.

(12)     Councillor Hyde stated that having attended the site visit she considered that the proposals would result in sympathetic improvements to the appearance of the existing building including those made to the garden area and that on that basis she would be supporting the officers recommendations.

(13)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 to 1 Members voted to grant planning permission.

31.7    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.

Condition 2 to be amended to include reference to the following plans:

Plan Type        Reference          Version           Date Received

Site and Block Plan, 1384-P-01,P1, 23/12/2013

Lower Ground Floor Plan as Existing, 1384 –P-02, P1, 23/12/2013

Ground Floor Plan as Existing, 1384-P-04,.P1, 23/12/2013

Second Floor Plan as Existing, 1384-P-05, P1, 23/12/2013

Third Floor Plan as Existing, 1384-P-06, P1, 23/12/2013

Roof Plan as Existing, 1384-P-07, P1, 23/12/2013

North & East Elevations, 1384-P-08, 23/12/2013

as Existing

South & West Elevations, 1384-P-09, P1, 23/12/2013

As Existing

Section AA as existing, 1384-P-10, P1, 23/12/2013

Lower Ground Floor Plan, 1384-P-12, P2,28/02/2014

As Proposed

Ground Floor Plan as Proposed, 1384-P13, P4, 13/05/2014

First Floor Plan as Proposed, 1384-P-14, P2, 28/02/2014

Second Floor Plan as Proposed, 1384-P-15, P2, 28/02/2014

Third Floor Plan as Existing, 1384-P-16, P3, 13/05/2014

North & East Elevations, 1384-P-18, P6, 16/07/2014

As Proposed

South & West Elevations, 1384-P-19, P6, 16/07/2014

As Proposed

Section AA as Existing, 1384-P-20, P1, 23/12/2013